Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (713)	4/29/2003 7:40:07 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1112

I think the problem is that, for example, Iraq probably could have found some basis for claiming that an exacerbation of tension led them to invade Kuwait, and justified that invasion. How does one determine what exacerbation of tension justifies invasion, and what doesn't?

To: one_less who wrote (713)	4/30/2003 4:32:21 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1112

In many instances the only way to advance with a discussion is to examine the common ground that might provide premises that would resolve the issue. It is not evident that exacerbating tension is useful, especially when it is somewhat artificial baiting. What is true is that the thorough ventilation of an issue may require avoidance of social agreement, and therefore that those who attempt to impose a consensus may need to be thwarted, if the consensus is simply a way of reacting against unpleasantness. I used to see this at St. John's: upperclassmen frequently gave into the urge to appear to make progress by creating momentum to subscribe to a consensus that was not a true result of addressing issues forthrightly.